Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 117 (MAD)

P. K. M. Shahul Hammed v. A. Santhanalakshmi

2004-02-05

T.V.MASILAMANI

body2004
Judgment :- This revision petition is filed challenging the fair and final orders passed by the Appellate Authority (VII Small Causes Court, Chennai) in R.C.A.No.1285 of 1996 on 10.7.1997. 2. The only question for consideration is whether the dismissal order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground of non-production of certified copy of the order passed by the Rent Controller is sustainable or not. 3. It is not in controversy that the revision petitioner filed the said appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority with the leave to produce the certified copy later and thereafter failed to comply with such an order for production of the certified copy and therefore, the Rent Control Appeal was dismissed on that ground. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended vehemently that even though the petitioner is entitled to file a petition to restore the copy application for certified copy which was struck off by reason of non-furnishing of stamps due to the lapse on the part of the Advocate Clerk, who is no longer in service, the learned Appellate Authority is not correct in dismissing the appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued in this respect with reference to Rules 127 to 134 of the Civil Rules of Practice relating to certified copies that in spite of several adjournment granted to the petitioner for production of certified copy of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the same was not filed as the copy application was ultimately struck off and that since he has not chosen to restore the copy application to get a certified copy and file the same into Court, the revision filed with a certified copy obtained long after the disposal of the appeal by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is not maintainable in law. 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order passed by S.M. ABDUL WAHAB, J. (as he then was) in C.R.P.Nos.530, 531, 583 to 585, 779, 897, 1728, 1933, 1952 and 1953 of 1997 dated 27.9.1997 in support of his contention that the appeal is maintainable even without producing the certified copy of the fair and final orders in the rent control proceedings. The ratio laid down therein in paragraphs 23 and 25 of the said order do not support such contention. The ratio laid down therein in paragraphs 23 and 25 of the said order do not support such contention. In fact, the ratio laid down therein reiterates the proposition that there is no necessity for filing the certified copy of the Rent Controller's order in an appeal preferred to the Appellate Authority and that the appeal may be filed with the leave of the Court permitting the appellant to produce the same later. On a fair reading of the said order, it is clear that the appellants therein filed a petition to condone the delay in filing the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller and that since such petition was dismissed, the revisions were preferred to set aside the said orders. 7. On the contrary, in this case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein did not make any attempt to restore the copy application filed in the rent control proceedings which was struck off for non-compliance and that only after dismissal of the rent control appeal, he obtained the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller for filing this revision. After the disposal of M.P.No.347 of 1996 in R.C.O.P.No.1747 of 1995 on 27.9.1996, certified copy was applied for on 30.9.1997 and delivered on 17.10.1997. The date of disposal of R.C.A No.1285 of 1996 is 10.7.1997. Hence, on facts also, this case differs from that of the cases decided by S.M. ABDUL WAHAB, J. in the said revisions. 8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision 2001 (4) C.T.C. 422 (SHAW WALLACE & CO. LTD v. MRS.STELLA COILPILLAI NAZERESH) in support of his contention that the order of the Appellate Authority is not legally valid, on a fair reading, it is seen from the said decision that the appeal in that case was returned by the Registry for re-presentation after compliance of the defects, as the certified copy of the order was not produced along with the appeal and that the impugned order was passed in the petition to condone the delay in producing the certified copy. But, on the other hand, in this case, the petitioner did not take care to produce the certified copy even with a petition to condone the delay while the rent control appeal was posted repeatedly for final hearing before the Appellate Authority and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio laid down in the said decision does not help advance the case of the petitioner herein. 9. Having regard to the supine indifference and laches on the part of the revision petitioner in the rent control proceedings to restore the copy application which was struck off for non-compliance and having regard to the circumstance that the certified copy filed along with this revision was obtained on 17.10.1997, long after the disposal of the rent control appeal, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is legally sustainable. 10. Thus the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, but without costs.